King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co.
104 Wash. App. 338, 16 P.3d 45 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has the inherent power and discretion to stay civil discovery or issue protective orders to protect a party's Fifth Amendment rights when parallel criminal proceedings are pending, and must engage in a careful balancing of specified factors to determine whether such measures are warranted.
Facts:
- On June 10, 1999, Olympic Pipeline Company's buried pipeline ruptured, spilling thousands of gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek in Bellingham.
- The spilled gasoline ignited, resulting in the tragic deaths of Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, both 10 years old, and a young fisherman, and caused widespread destruction along the creek.
- The family of Wade King (King) subsequently filed a wrongful death action against Olympic Pipeline Company, two other pipeline companies, and three individuals: Fred Crognale (Olympic’s president), Frank Hopf (Olympic’s vice president and general manager), and Ron Brentson (Olympic’s supervisor of product movement).
- Immediately following the disaster, various governmental agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. Attorney, initiated investigations into potential criminal violations of environmental laws, with Crognale, Hopf, and Brentson becoming a focus of these inquiries.
- The criminal investigations involved specific actions such as an assistant U.S. attorney questioning Brentson’s former wife, subpoenaing Brentson’s personnel files to a federal grand jury, issuing numerous grand jury subpoenas, and seizing the ruptured section of pipe.
- Immunity from federal prosecution was offered to and accepted by some Olympic employees in exchange for their testimony before the grand jury, including at least one employee supervised by Brentson.
- The U.S. Department of Justice explicitly notified counsel for two of the Petitioners that the government was continuing its investigations and intended to seek a court order for destructive testing of the pipe, seeking their input and indicating their status as potential defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- The family of Wade King (King) brought a wrongful death action against Olympic Pipeline Company, two other pipeline companies, and three individuals (Fred Crognale, Frank Hopf, and Ron Brentson) in the trial court.
- In February 2000, Crognale, Hopf, and Brentson (Petitioners) moved the trial court for a limited, partial stay of discovery directed to them until December 1, 2000, arguing it was necessary to preserve their Fifth Amendment rights and ability to defend fully, which the trial court denied.
- Following notification from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the ongoing criminal investigations and Petitioners' status as potential defendants, Petitioners renewed their motion for a temporary stay of discovery from May until September 15, 2000, believing criminal status would be clarified by then.
- In the alternative, Petitioners sought a CR 26 protective order to prevent dissemination to nonparties of any discovery taken from them.
- The Bellingham Herald newspaper intervened in the trial court for the purpose of opposing any protective order.
- After a hearing, the trial court again denied both Petitioners' renewed motion for a temporary stay and their alternative request for a CR 26 protective order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a temporary stay of civil discovery or a protective order without properly balancing a comprehensive set of factors, thereby failing to adequately protect a party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when parallel criminal proceedings are pending?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellington, J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Petitioners' motions for a temporary stay of discovery or a protective order without properly applying the necessary legal framework and factors for balancing competing interests. The court formally adopts a set of factors derived from federal jurisprudence to guide Washington trial courts in exercising their discretion on such motions. The trial court made several legal errors, including misinterpreting Washington law regarding adverse inferences, as established in Ikeda v. Curtis, by believing it could prohibit a jury from drawing such an inference when a party invokes the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the trial court misjudged the potential prejudice of delay by assuming a five-year delay when only a temporary stay was requested, and incorrectly applied a 'compelling interest' test for a protective order rather than the 'good cause' standard required by CR 26, as affirmed by Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart. The court noted the genuine criminal jeopardy faced by Petitioners, the substantial overlap between the civil and criminal matters, and the public's interest in the integrity of the judicial system. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of a Washington decision adopting and discussing these factors and made significant legal errors, the case is remanded for a rehearing, requiring the trial court to exercise its discretion in light of the newly established analytical framework.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for Washington state jurisprudence as it formally adopts and articulates a clear, multi-factor test for trial courts to apply when considering requests for stays of civil discovery or protective orders in cases involving parallel criminal proceedings. It provides crucial guidance, correcting common legal misinterpretations regarding Fifth Amendment invocation, the standard for protective orders, and the assessment of prejudice from delay. By establishing this framework, the decision helps to safeguard criminal defendants' constitutional rights against self-incrimination while also balancing the plaintiffs' right to expeditious civil discovery and broader public interests. This ensures greater consistency and thoroughness in judicial discretion when navigating the complex interplay between civil and criminal justice systems.
